oh but yeah gorf, let me tell you about society real quick
society as we know it is a culmination of opinions that projects a census with respect to beliefs on a populace. however, while it's true that many people feel that adults liking a show intentionally made for a child is weird (which is actually really debatable these days 'cause art styles, humor, and other stuff can appeal to essentially all ages aka manchildren watching animoo or people in their 50s still reading comics etc.) that doesn't necessarily make these beliefs to be objective facts. in fact, it's possible within 20 years that cartoons become the main source of entertainment in media for all ages. not saying it's likely, only saying it's possible. at which point the old census regarding the weirdness of older generations watching children's shows becomes void. what i'm trying to say is that just because an opinion is popular at one point doesn't make it a legitimate justification for ****ting on people's passions. in fact, the irony of all this is that i'm pretty sure society also feels that proverbially spitting on what people enjoy is actually a weirder and ****tier thing to do do. ****ing gorf LOL god that kid is such a ****ter jesus christ
gorf is basically the church that pursued galileo
gorf is the man who tried to refute copernicus's theory of the earth revolving around the sun
gorf is the populace that condemned joan of ark
I know this is taking away from the point but the main reason why the church ended up condemning Galileo was that Galileo called the Pope an idiot (probably by accident, but it's hard to not reach that conclusion when you read his book). Previously the pope had been a big supporter of his. So, the hammer coming down was politics.
Prior to that it had been condemned as bad science, which at the time was not only understandable but frankly the most well-supported option. The fact is that prior to Kepler's laws of planetary orbits, the heliocentric system had the same systematic issues as the geocentric system and prior to more powerful telescopes no observations of critical evidence (such as stellar parallaxes) could be made.
As such maligning the opponents of copernicus and galileo is unfair given that based on the evidence and theoretical framework that was available in that day and age they were more likely to be right, only later evidence and advances proved them wrong. Being wrong isn't a bad thing, what's bad is when you're wrong against all available evidence. Seriously, comparing them to gorf? That's going a bit far.
A better comparison would be to the audience of the Opera Carmen during it's initial run at the Opéra-Comique, denying the value of what is certainly a high point of the genre due to opposition to it's "moral lapses". That is more similar to the attitude taken by gorf here rather then natural philosophers who made the best conclusion they could based on the available evidence.
